West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1887-08-12

the liberty Of his private life. He
cannot exercise his private judgment
in what is for his own good, butmust
provide himself with the certificate
of physician that it is necessary
for his health whenever he may de-
sire to enjoy glass of beer or whis-
key. 1t is not strange that the ro-
bust common sense and manly spirit
of the people of Texas have repudi-
ated by an overwhelming vote pol
icy which is not only gross impo-
sition upon personal liberty but an
encouragement and incentive to So
cial lying hypocrisy. When the in
habitant Of Maine crawls to the State
drug store with his bottle and his
medical certificate that the gin or
whiskey for which he pleads is nee
essary for his health he does not feel
the humiliation and degradation of
the act. He has become so long
used to this species of tyranny that
he has at last taken quite kindly to
the mendacious, fraudful and debas-
ing methods for the easy evasion of
the law. But imagine the sturdy
sons of Texas, who fercely resent
the slightest invasion of their perso-
nal rights, sneaking to the apothe-
cary shops with a doctors certificate
every time they may want glass of
spirits or beer! 1t would have been
as easy to enchain one of the 'north-
ers" that sweep over the plains of
Texas as to subject its inhabitants
to the despotism of q sumptuary law
like this.
Much of the controversy over Pro-
hibition in Texas appears to have
turned upon the material advantages
and disadvantages ofthe policy rath-
err than upon the moral and political
aspects of the question. The testi-
mony of Governor Martin, of Kansas.
and Governor Larrabee, of Iowa, was
paraded before the people to show
those States have hourished in the
brief period that has elapsed since
the Prohibition experiment was
adopted. Curiously enough, very
little in Names experience of TWEEN
ty-five years was available for the
Prohibitionist side of the controyer-
sy. But it is not likely that the vo-
tiers of Texas gave much considera.
ton to arguments drawn from the ex-
ample of other States. Kansas and
Iowa hourished before the introduc-
ton there of Prohibition, and it is
probable that they will continue to
flourish notwithstanding its inva-
sions of personal rights. The real
grounds upon which this question
was decided in Texas were of pc.
litical character. BY an overwhelm-
ing vote its people have declared that
a majority in the State has no right
to frame its opinions or notions on
questions of private taste into acts
of legislation and enforce them upon
a minority, with pains and penalties
for violation. Such restraints upon
personal liberty are none the less
tyrannical and odious when imposed
by majority than if they were the
carnations of the will of solitary
despot. While intemperance is So
cial evil which the moralist and the
philanthropist may well deplore, the
people of Texas have come to the So
Der conclusion that remedy which
attacks the very foundations of per-
sonal liberty would be worse than
the disease. The result in Texas
has been blow from which the
present crusade of prohibitory fanat
icism will not easily recover. With
its defeat the way will be made more
easy for the introduction of rational
and practicable methods of restrain
ing the abuses of the liquor traffic.